Nancy Pelosi, who I hoped had taken an irreversible plunge into irrelevance, wants desperately to regain her old spot as Speaker (God help us all) and get busy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/princess-nancy-pelosivows-to-do-for-child-care-what-we-did-for-health-care/2011/11/15/gIQACzY1VN_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpos t) “doing for child care what we did for health-care reform”.

Yippee, federal nannies for everyone. There goes the free world.

Hello Steve:

So, you APPROVE of the present Speaker saying he's feeding your children HEALTHY foods, when what he did was to start calling pizza and french fries vegetables... (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/at-schools-making-pizza-a-vegetable/)

He did this at the behest of the pizza and potato industry - not at the behest of moms... He SHOULD cry about this, and you should be ashamed.

excon

Tell the truth about it, ex.

"Under the current school lunch rules (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/veggie-politics-how-budget-cuts-can-make-pizza-a-vegetable/), the two tablespoons of tomato sauce on a slice of pizza qualifies as a serving of vegetables. And a Congressional spending bill released this week ensures that it stays that way.

"We are not saying pizza is a vegetable," said Corey Henry, the spokesman for the American Frozen Food Institute, which supports the bill. "What we are saying is if you serve a slice of pizza with 2 tablespoons of vegetable paste, it can be an important way to deliver a number of vegetables that children will actually consume.""

Of course you know many school districts opposed the new FDA rules, too don't you?

But yes, I am entirely opposed to the federal government mandating what kids eat. If I want my kid to eat pizza, he eats pizza.

Yeah I see those kids on the school lunch line craving that serving of mixed veggies from a can. At least they eat the pizza sauce.

Something you can't do these days - I went home for lunch in elementary school. In Jr High we ate at the snack truck that parked across the street. In high school we ate anywhere BUT school most of the time and when I did, the only edible thing they served was a cinnamon roll. It took me 33 more years to get to a 34 inch waist.

No, Congress did not declare pizza a vegetable (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-congress-declare-pizza-as-a-vegetable-not-exactly/2011/11/20/gIQABXgmhN_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter)

You guys obviously don't have a lot of single working females with kids around you, or any old people who have nothing but the nanny state to depend on but family, and benefits.

Sorry guys, but what Nancy is talking about is a lot more important than what Bonehead is talking about. You hit a nerve when you don't care about women, and children, and old folks, or what they need. Nanny state my a$$!! You want the truth, this congress has done nothing for people who have nothing, but criticize them from wanting something, as inaduquate as that is.

Go ahead, keep taking from the weak and vulnerable, and working poor. Wake up, your job creators ain't feeding nobody but themselves, but you want to fight over a slice of pizza??

Easy to see I would take Pelosi, over Bonehead any day.

What should be easy to see - since I know I've said so many times - is I'm all for a safety net for those who need it. What I'm not for is the ever-expanding nanny state envisioned by people like Pelosi, Obama and the occupiers.

your job creators ain't feeding nobody but themselves

91% of American workers are employed by the private sector.Government accounts for 8% of all US workers.

What should be easy to see - since I know I've said so many times - is I'm all for a safety net for those who need it. What I'm not for is the ever-expanding nanny state envisioned by people like Pelosi, Obama and the occupiers.

Then I highly suggest you get the facts of what they are doing, and for who before you say you are against it.

91% of American workers are employed by the private sector.Government accounts for 8% of all US workers.

Then where the hell do all those unemployed and poor people come from? Oh that's right, those lazy b@stards volunteered, because they are required to bath, or some similar nonsense.

Send 'em one of those philosophy books and that will show them the error of their ways.

Then I highly suggest you get the facts of what they are doing, and for who before you say you are against it.

I try, but OWS is too incoherent to understand. I finally found their "one demand (http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/)", which boils down to "world revolution (http://occupywallst.org/)." :

The message I get just from what you posted is they are not happy with a lot of things they see going on and want them changed, much like many of us.

I bet you see more than a few things you agree with also. But knowing you as I think I do, you have a problem with the messenger, and their methods. I get that to.

Yep, I've already made it clear that I have no respect for people who have no respect for the rights and property of others, especially those for who "revolution" means "a communist effort to re-imagine and regroup for revolution in the U.S." (http://brechtforum.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=12109)

Hello again, Steve:

Here's the deal.. You get hysterical over the WRONG things.. THREE New Black Panthers sent your wing into a tizzy. Now, there's THREE, count 'em THREE communists talking about revolution... The number THREE comes from your article.

excon

Whenever you have social unrest for policies that people are against, there will always be push back, and when you get beyond labels, and rhetoric, and ideology, you are left with CAUSE, and EFFECT. Revolution has been going on since the original revolution. Seems that's the only thing that makes changes happen, is when enough b!tchin' is done.

While OWS doesn't have the age, experience, or where with all YET, that others have had, or as we say a clear articulation of demands or direction, THEY WILL, as they grow, and overcome obstacles like the other more known movements in this countries past. Sure coalitions have many diverse factions in them, but given the fact that many people are not happy with present circumstances, both RIGHT, and LEFT, and Between, something like this was bound to happen.

People want change for the better, even if they are unclear as to what that looks like. We can't ignore that sentiment, because a few in the crowd are ones we don't particularly like.

Hello again, Steve:

Here's the deal.. You get hysterical over the WRONG things.. THREE New Black Panthers sent your wing into a tizzy. Now, there's THREE, count 'em THREE communists talking about revolution... The number THREE comes from your article.

excon

Um, did you miss where the occupiers motto is "world revolution"? Dude, these people want an end to capitalism, to bring down the system, which leaves what?

No they don't Steve. A few maybe, but as a whole they want FAIR.

Um, did you miss where the occupiers motto is "world revolution"? Dude, these people want an end to capitalism, to bring down the system, Hello again, Steve:

Here's their website (http://occupyparty.org/). That motto seems to be missing... You'd think it would be there...

But, I agree with you. These people are set on world revolution - all three of 'em.. snicker, snicker...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Here's their website (http://occupyparty.org/). That motto seems to be missing... You'd think it would be there...

I don't know who the Occupy Party is, but Occupy Wall Street who I was referring to does as I posted earlier (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/nanny-state-update-literally-613197-2.html#post2955147).


But, I agree with you. These people are set on world revolution - all three of 'em.. snicker, snicker...

That's just one of the groups influencing and financing the movement. You'll see.

No they don't Steve. A few maybe, but as a whole they want FAIR.

They don't want fair, Tal. It isn't fair to demand that others take care of them. It isn't fair to disrupt the lives and livelihoods of others. It isn't fair to demand their student loans be forgiven. Take care of your own self and get out of the way just as I do, that's fair.

That's just one of the groups influencing and financing the movement. You'll see.Hello again, Steve:

So that cartoon is their official position?? See, here's the problem again, you don't really want to SEE what they're about, so you just call them names, and get all hysterical.

Now, I don't doubt that there are fringe groups that want to latch on... But, fringe ISN'T what the BULK of the movement is about. You'll see. Like you kept saying about the Tea Party, OWS is made up of ordinary Americans - young and old, working and not. It's a POPULAR uprising.. Just like the Koch brothers didn't start the Tea Party, the Communists, or George Soros, or NAMBLA didn't start OWS.

excon

Names? I just call them the occupiers, what should I call them, an "infestation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-occupy-movement-more-trouble-or-change/2011/11/15/gIQAu9dVPN_story.html?tid=pm_pop)"?

Zombie, who always gets the pictures the media won't (http://zombietime.com/occupy_oakland_10-22-2011/), posted a pic of the Occupy Oakland workshop schedule:

http://zombietime.com/occupy_oakland_10-22-2011/IMG_3912.JPG

Gee, Marxism 101, Anarchism & Anti-colonialism, and I see at least 4 anti-capitalism workshops. Sounds like fun.

Wait until their "general assemblies " goes national.

So I should see the Tea party through Rush, and Grover, And Army, and that Cheney kid?

Well apparently I'm supposed to see the occupiers through you, Tal.

P.S. I noticed this ad at the bottom of the page. Now there's a bailout I can endorse:

Naw, just stating my case.

Gee, Marxism 101, Anarchism & Anti-colonialism, and I see at least 4 anti-capitalism workshops. Sounds like fun.Hello again, Mr. Hysterical:

I see that you're alarmed... But, you should listen to your friend, excon... Communism is dead, and there's only a few dingbats who think it isn't. The dingbats found an audience. They're STILL dingbats...

You're hearing this from a far left guy. Obama is MUCH too conservative for me. Everybody on your side calls him a communist and a Marxist. What would that make me? I'm not a communist. I'm not a socialist.. In fact, I don't know ANY commies in the Democratic party. That would be NONE.

So, I know if you search the right wing websites, you'll find other hysterical people who'll agree with you and call names, and show some bulletin boards. They'll show somebody taking a crap, and otherwise give you something to be scared of... But, there isn't any bogymen.. Really, there isn't..

excon

Hello again, Mr. Hysterical:

LOL, if were hysterical I'D TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND THROW IN LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!! I get HYSTERICAL when my Big Bad Donuts lose to a 1-8 team.


They're STILL dingbats...

At least we agree that far. You do know that I'm not into conspiracies and the main reason I post things like the Occupy Oakland workshop schedule is to tweak lefties don't you? They won't listen to reason so why not give 'em a good tweak now and then?

The nanny state lost one - or at least had a temporary setback. McDonald's seems to have outsmarted San Francisco (http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php) on their Happy Meal ban.


On Thursday, Dec. 1, the city's de facto ban of the Happy Meal commences. San Francisco has accomplished what the Hamburglar could not. Or has it?.

It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar's much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens' Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al. in their desire to keep McDonald's from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat -- when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

Next up, how to outsmart them on the circumcision ban?

Hope they lowered the price of the Happy Meal by 10 cents .

Hope they lowered the price of the Happy Meal by 10 cents .

LOL, and as one commenter said, rename it the "Liberty Meal."

10 cents today, a dollar tomorrow.

"Let them eat [sculptured chocolate] cake"
First lady Michelle Obama enjoyed a lovely evening at Co Co. Sala on F Street on Monday night. A Yeas & Nays source tells us she dined with seven friends for dinner and, of course, dessert — which featured an edible chocolate sculpture and house-made artisanal chocolates by Chef Santosh Tiptur. We're told Obama's favorite savory was Chef Tiptur's Moroccan Swordfish Sliders with chermoula marinade, fennel salad, aged pecorino and hazelnut coffee dressing. The restaurant owners later posted to Twitter about their excitement of having her as a guest. “It was such an honor to have first lady Michelle Obama dine at Co Co. Sala last night. What an exciting and humbling experience

Michelle Obama Eats Swordfish Sliders and Cheroula Marinade Getting Off Target For Campaign Re-Election Moody Eye View (http://moodyeyeview.com/2011/11/30/michelle-obama-eats-swordfish-sliders-and-cheroula-marinade-getting-off-target-for-campaign-re-election/)

She then went to deliver the keynote address at an obesity summit .

Michelle Obama keynoting obesity summit - Lynn Sweet (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/11/michelle_obama_keynoting_obesi.html)

Did she take a doggie bag to Zucotti Park?

Nah... doggie bags for the Zuccotti crowd ? That's beneath them... They only east fresh donated food.

Speaking of doggie bags and the nanny state, Clarence Otis Jr. a former Obama donor and the CEO of Darden Restaurants which include Olive Garden, Red Lobster and LongHorn Steakhouse, has joined the chorus saying regulations are preventing job creation.


What's stopping job creation? Too much regulation

"Businesses adding jobs" is a headline every elected official loves to read. Sadly, it's one that's getting harder and harder to find because of a policy and regulatory landscape that makes it increasingly difficult for businesses to see why and where creating new jobs makes sense.

That's especially true for me and my colleagues in the restaurant industry, who find ourselves facing a plate piled high with more and more federal, state and local regulations.

Regulatory mandates flowing from federal health care reform may be the most visible, but the list also includes measures such as new mandatory paid leave provisions that require us to change the way we accommodate employees who need to take time off when they are ill and ever more unrealistic requirements regarding employee meal and rest breaks that, in California for example, force our employees to take breaks in the middle of serving lunch or dinner.

This reality is the result of the best intentions. Policymakers working in silos at every level are pushing through regulations that on their face seem to address admirable goals -- that are each directed at outcomes that seem desirable.

The cumulative effect of these regulations, however, is significant damage to the hard-working Americans (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/06/opinion/otis-regulations-job-creation/?hpt=us_mid) who are the intended beneficiaries.

OK ex, all yours.

Ex is a business owner.. what would Clarence Otis Jr know ?

Ex is a business owner ..what would Clarence Otis Jr know ?Hello wrong wingers:

Let me see.. Maybe Dardin is a second tier restaurant chain, because when you're in a Red Lobster, you can't get a lousy napkin. They don't have enough help..

ME?? When I have a customer who isn't getting served, I don't check with my list of regulations. I check with my list of candidates..

But then again, I don't run a second tier operation.

excon

Must be your area. I was in Red Lobster a couple of weeks ago and the service was fantastic. Olive Garden on Sunday also offered fantastic service. Of course that might change with the added regulations they're facing because they'll have to raise prices and people will eat out less so they'll have to downsize their workforce.

Regulatory mandates flowing from federal health care reform may be the most visible, but the list also includes measures such as new mandatory paid leave provisions that require us to change the way we accommodate employees who need to take time off when they are ill and ever more unrealistic requirements regarding employee meal and rest breaks that, in California for example, force our employees to take breaks in the middle of serving lunch or dinner.

Fire the manager, and get someone who can manage, no matter what the rules may be. If you can't serve the customers when they walk through the door, you shouldn't be in business.

Bet a high paid hedge fund manager gets a break when he wants it, so why not a low paid service worker? You mean I have to wash dishes when I get the flu?

While I agree that regulation may require some creative solutions, and implementations, I am still waiting for specifics that make them worth scraping. Maybe it's the business model itself that can stand some tweaking, like eliminating crazy bonus pay outs, or golden parachutes that are unearned. For sure you cannot expect the workers to make up for executives greed, and over reach.

Maybe its the business model itself that can stand some tweaking, like eliminating crazy bonus pay outs, or golden parachutes that are unearned. For sure you cannot expect the workers to make up for executives greed, and over reach.

I guess you missed the part where restaurants operate on a low profit margin.

Hello again,

If I wasn't clear before, I'll try again.

I've been in business for 30 years. There's NEVER been CERTAINTY. Taxes have gone up and they've gone down. Regulations have been instituted, and they've been revised and replaced. Republicans have been elected and so have Democrats.

NONE of that guided ANY of my business decisions. Those costs, WHATEVER they were, were part of the normal business operating environment. I incorporated them into the cost of doing business, and made sure that I charged MORE than that.

I was able to DO it. LOTS of people were NOT. Guess who they blamed? Themselves?? Nahhh... It was regulations, it was the health inspector, it was the union, it was taxes, it was ANYBODY but me.

excon

I incorporated them into the cost of doing business, and made sure that I charged MORE than that.

That's what I've been saying all along/ They aren't just the cost of doing business, they're passed on to me. The less disposable income I have because you keep raising your prices for things I need, the less I spend at places like restaurants which have a low profit margin already.

SOMEONE pays the price for over-regulation, ex, usually those who can afford it least. You do know that Obama wants energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket" by way of regulation. That way we can pay through the nose for electricity to charge the $40,000 Chevy Volt we can't afford that may or may not catch fire on us. See how good regulations are?

That's what I've been saying all along/ They aren't just the cost of doing business, they're passed on to me. Hello again, Steve:

I don't think that's what you were saying. I think you were saying that people wouldn't get hired - not that stuff costs more.

But, be that as it may, you're right this time. ALL the costs of doing business get passed on. Are regulations a part of that cost? Sure. Are they a BIGGER part of that cost than they ever were? NO!

A guy that's not doing as well as I am, might NOT agree with me. The sniveler from Red Lobster sounds like one of those.

excon

Actually I've said both, but in relation to the one statement of yours I just quoted, I have been saying those "costs of doing business" are passed on all along. Glad you finally acknowledged it in so many words.

The point with the Red Lobster guy is here is an Obama donor and supporter admitting over regulation makes it difficult to plan. If he doesn't understand how all the new regulations are going to affect his business he can't plan, and if you can't plan you have uncertainty. Without confidence in what to expect in the way of compliance companies are going to be hesitant to hire. It's just a fact, ex, it's HAPPENING and people on both sides that have to deal with these regulations in real life say the same thing, so I don't know what further proof you need that over regulating hinders economic growth.

I don't know what further proof you need that over regulating hinders economic growth.Hello again, Steve:

All of what your guy said is true.. There IS no certainly. Apparently, that STOPS him. But, believing as I did, that there NEVER WILL be certainty, it didn't stop me. I either go NOW, or I should NEVER go. I went.

Up till now we've been talking about regulations... The notion of "over regulating" is in the eye of the beholder. Like I've said a few times here, those who can't compete look for ANYONE or ANYTHING to blame but themselves..

excon

Then let's just regulate the hell out of everything.

Here you go, this is the disturbing mindset of the fool in the oval office. That Keystone pipeline that could be creating a bunch of jobs, helping free us from middle east oil and giving a boost to our friends to the north? Extending unemployment benefits will create more jobs than Keystone (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-more-jobs-jobless-benefits-keystone/244871), according to our really, really smart president.

Okay what regulations would you do away with? If regulations are bad, then name them. That's my point, everybody has a grief about them, and whose choice is it to go into a business with a low profit margin?

Fire the guy for having a cold if that's what you want, or the pregnant female in false labor, that will solve the problems right?

Or let the businesses run things the way they want to, and if your child gets asthma so what? And who needs a break when you have a lunch crowd? That's right and make government smaller so businesses can get as big as they please, and do as they please.

Yeah the cost gets passed on to the consumer, so what, then he needs a raise to afford what ever businesses are selling. What a cycle, and evidently you think that's the way it should be. I guess that's why repubs don't want any kind of agency that protects consumers because that's bad for business, because an informed consumer can make a choice and not just fall for the sales pitch.

No customers and you capitalist are out of business. Doesn't matter about that profit margin then.

Here you go, this is the disturbing mindset of the fool in the oval office. Hello again, Steve:

You confuse a negotiating position with a policy decision.. Watch.. He'll trade the pipeline for getting the middle class tax cuts. That way everybody wins. Ain't Barack wonderful?

excon

Here you go, this is the disturbing mindset of the fool in the oval office. That Keystone pipeline that could be creating a bunch of jobs, helping free us from middle east oil and giving a boost to our friends to the north? Extending unemployment benefits will create more jobs than Keystone (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-more-jobs-jobless-benefits-keystone/244871), according to our really, really smart president.

Environmental impact of the oil shale industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry#Gre enhouse_gas_emissions)


At best, the direct combustion of oil shales produces carbon emissions similar to those from the lowest form of coal, lignite, at 2.15 moles CO2/MJ,[2] an energy source which is also politically contentious due to its high emission levels.[17][18] For both power generation and oil extraction, the CO2 emissions can be reduced by better utilization of waste heat from the product streams.


Currently, the in-situ process is the most attractive proposition due to the reduction in standard surface environmental problems. However, in-situ processes do involve possible significant environmental costs to aquifers, especially since in-situ methods may require ice-capping or some other form of barrier to restrict the flow of the newly gained oil into the groundwater aquifers. However, after the removal of the freeze wall these methods can still cause groundwater contamination as the hydraulic conductivity of the remaining shale increases allowing groundwater to flow through and leach salts from the newly toxic aquifer

Asbestos for insulation was a great idea too! Until all the cancer victims showed up.Make money before the science is known, or the regulator shows up, then repeal health care and drop all the cancer victims, now that's a great business model from the guys who defend low taxes for the rich, but not the middle class. Or what's left of it, but why let a good hostage go to waste?

Hello again, Steve:

You confuse a negotiating position with a policy decision.. Watch.. He'll trade the pipeline for getting the middle class tax cuts. That way everybody wins. Ain't Barack wonderful?

excon

I have been known to confuse Chris Johnson with a reliable running back, but I'm smart enough to know you can create more jobs by building a pipeline than by keeping people unemployed. :rolleyes:

There are some states that don't agree with you on that.

Proposal for 2nd pipeline sparks opposition ? USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-30/keystone-pipeline-opposition/51000802/1)


-- Along the pipeline route, landowners are fighting eminent domain lawsuits as TransCanada tries to collect the easements it needs to begin construction. The company has been criticized as presumptuous for taking landowners to court before obtaining a federal permit.

Opposition raised to proposed oil sands pipeline | Tulsa World (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100726_11_0_Localo446607)


BP, the company at the forefront of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, is one of the oil sands producers.

But even its stockholders have expressed concern about investing in oil sands, according to news reports.

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said an environmental-impact study on the pipeline was inadequate and did not address environmental or safety concerns in the event of spills.

Have we forgotten the gulf spill already? Or that no oil spills have ever been cleaned up on American soil? Think Valdez, and how that worked out. That's was clean oil compared to this shale oil. This isn't fed oppositions, it's the states that the pipeline runs through.

Republican use of this hostage will bite them in the butt, so why do it, in the name of jobs? I don't think so! Looks like Obama is suckering you guys again. Maybe Bonehead and the house should get out more, or learn to read, because those regulations, and lawsuits have to be reconciled.

Regulations in my industry are causing owers of small operations to close shop... a job loser .

The business is being consolidated by larger companies . But these companies are not necessarily hiring . Instead where they might hire they instead are squeezing what productivity they can from their work force.
The regs have also increased the costs of the products which means fewer sales .
You see ;I may not be an owner ;but the effect of OVER regulations are apparent for all to see.
I have the FDA to deal with . They can't seem to decide if I make drugs or foods. So they take the worse of both and consolidate them into a composite of conflicting regulations that none understand . What we are left with instead of is inpectors that use their own interpretations to enforce the regs in an ad hoc and inconsistent basis . One inspector that may have been in the drug enforcement side before using one standard ;another coming in the next round with a completely different understanding of the regs.

Let's see if we can bring this to something many of us understand . NYC has a long tradition of cart vendors selling foods that the city is famous for . People actually travel to the city to eat things like "dirty water hot dogs " or pretzels and nuts roasted on charcoal .
Now someone in the city thinks it would be a good idea to rate these carts with the same standards that the sit down fancy eateries need to comply with. Obviously these carts will never comply... and when people start seeing the poorer ratings (NYC uses color coding) ;they will stop going to the cart vendors .

That's not fair making street vendors use FDA approved food, and washing their hands before serving the public.

But Mitt will make them part of a national chain and fire the b#stards, and take the money. That what he does for a living.

Be a dishwasher, and keep your hands clean for a living, and don't worry about the regulations.

There are some states that don't agree with you on that.

Duplicate post.

Make that a janitor, my bad, Newt is the new flavor for repubs.

There are some states that don't agree with you on that.

Some states agree with Obama that unemployment creates more jobs than pipeline construction? That's just really weird.

Tal. It's your simplistic retort doesn't wash. What this really means is that the vendors will have to pay up to the right inspector . What it won't do is improve the quality of the food . What it will do is force some of these vendors out of business... which is what the sit down restaurants want anyway.

Until you get specific Tom, and stop sighting the broad regulations, then what do you expect but a simple retort?

Science and facts is something we can look into, not ways to eliminate the competition. That's what consumers do, make choice about who to spend their money on.

I believe in rules or regulations, but which ones are you saying stops YOU from making money and why? And I think business has an input, but NOT the final say, nor be responsible for application, or oversight, because that ALWAYS means NO accountability, and NO responsibility when something does go wrong.

Let me be specific then. When Palin says drill baby drill, did she make anybody clean up a 20 year old environmental mess from Valdez when she was governor?? Its still screwed up!!

Umm Palin directed her AG to file and amicus in favor of the Valdez victims . SCOTUS decided in favor of them in 2008 while she was still Guv.

The oceans great ability to clean up biodegradable material on it's own along with some human intervention has cleaned up most of Prince William Sound . Oh I'm sure there is still some residue but you could hardly call it "screwed up" . It is recovering .

Exxon Valdez Anniversary: 20 Years Later, Oil Remains (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090323-exxon-anniversary.html)

Exxon has requested ,through FOIA ,the results of studies done by the government on the impact of the spill . Both the EPA and the Dept of Commerce have refused to release them . Why ? What are they trying to hide from Exxon ?

Now what does any of this prove? That it's unsafe to transport oil by ship ? Well then it seems to me that a pipeline would be the solution... no ? Or are you in favor of just stopping all oil production and transportation world wide ? I think that is what you long for .Maybe humans should just find a cave to live in and go back to eating moss and insects .

Are you raving again? Tom. Mention a disaster and you go into overdrive. Go worship at altar of BIG OIL of you wish but spare us the diatribe

I'll take it then that you want to heat your home and drive your car with kangaroo dung .

Why can't we use science and technology to to make these things safe and effective, as well as efficient? Less profits, but a better bang for the buck. Start with scrutiny of plans for oil spills, or accidents, BEFORE we allow for the operation to take place. I man a real plan, based on science and resources, not a power point presentation, or a million dollar valve that they proved didn't work before the bought it. Or a simple as keeping a drunk captain from behind the wheel.

The same thing applies for banking and washing dishes. Even in a free market, capitalistic society, rules and procedure, need not be compromised for a few extra bucks. Foxes are lousy watch dogs for hen houses, so why trust them?

You can't plan for the unknown. Hulls of tankers have been double lined since Valdez. The valve was not up to standards and there was clear neglegence from both BP and the regulators who allowed it. I've written a lot about how it was in fact the abandonment of lending standards dictated by the regulators that led to the banking crisis.
I refuse to let you paint us as being proponents of no regulations . Being opposed to Over regulation is to favor the elimination of stupid and unnecessary regulations .

I'll take it then that you want to heat your home and drive your car with kangaroo dung .

We don't rely on Alaskan oil Tom in fact we use Coal, you know deep green, directly and as a source of gas and have our own oil wells where oil is piped to the mainland, so we are a little further ahead than you think. Sadly there are not enough Kangaroos in the world for us to experiment with kangaroo dung but when the oil and gas run out we can use Uranium.

This administration has been doing just that while he strengthen and added others.

Don't take it personally when I repeat what the right keeps saying, because rules and policies are NEVER articulated, or explained, just complained about, so what should I do? Take the rights word for it? Heck I don't take the lefts word for anything either. I research it myself.

We can complain about differences but we also have to acknowledge similarity. You ain't that far right Tom, and that's the problem, I doubt you would be seen as a true republican by those in your party.

Look, I know when things don't work out, and accidents happen but there is enough blame to go around to everyone. That's why BP is suing Haliburton now.

Hello again,

Here's a specific regulation we can talk about...

There's this industry called the for profit college industry... It includes the ones who train dental assistants, and massage therapists. Their students are eligible for student loans too.

The problem is, the colleges are lying to students about their job prospects and they're reneging on the promise that they would HELP students get jobs... The industry produces SCHLOCK education, NO jobs, and costs taxpayers BILLIONS...

Obama wanted to REGULATE them to the degree that if they DIDN'T stop lying to their students, they'd lose their student loan eligibility.

Personally, although these regulations MIGHT cause some LOUSY schools to close, and MIGHT cause some people to lose their jobs, it would STILL be a regulation that I would support.

But, the lobbyists won, and the TAXPAYERS lost (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/politics/for-profit-college-rules-scaled-back-after-lobbying.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2).. I have NO idea why this would make Republicans happy.

excon

What's you problem Ex if these schools close, we had heaps of this sort of operation in cooking, security, hairdressing and a number of other lines of employment, mainly trapping international students. We had no problem shutting them down and our student intake dropped 100,000 a year. Who knows where they went, USA I guess

I guess the elite Ivy League schools the President hails from always lives up to their promises. I am certain the multitude of state run institutions that get mega bucks from the government do not.

I am familiar with both institutions that are cited in the article... U of Phoenix ,and Kaplan .

The U of Phoenix provides online course work ,their degrees are credible and legit .

Scores of students coming from under preforming public school systems have benefitted from tutoring from the Kaplan system . The before and after SAT scores are proof of that .

My own opinion is that I favor less overall aid to college systems . It horribly distorts tuition fees . Without all the assistance I am sure tuition costs would drop and innovative schools like the U of Phoenix would prosper .

what's you problem Ex if these schools close, we had heaps of this sort of operation in cooking, security, hairdressing and a number of other lines of employment, mainly trapping international students. We had no problem shutting them down and our student intake dropped 100,000 a year. Who knows where they went, USA I guess

Throwing the baby out with the bath water?


Quote by Tom,
My own opinion is that I favor less overall aid to college systems . It horribly distorts tuition fees . Without all the assistance I am sure tuition costs would drop and innovative schools like the U of Phoenix would prosper .

It's the students who need the assistance , but some oversight would be nice to rein in the fees they charge. While I agree that its an excellent system to be trained in something where there are job opportunities, the best ones partner with businesses and corporations to not only provide employment services, but a credible curriculum that meets the needs of the businesses that support them.

But a lot are popping up around the country that rip off students that haven't researched where they apply to. They are not just viable options for young people, but a lot of older ones who want something better than the job they have.

Its like anything else that turns a buck, somebody will always try to game the system, one way or another. Heck, if banks and businesses can make a profit when there are no rules or regulations strong enough, or smart enough, to stop them, what makes us think a teacher won't?

Throwing the baby out with the bath water?





No just throwing the shoonks and people who charge big money for student visa applications out of the system

Ahh, seems we have the same thing going here as we have many businesses that are trying to get increases in visa application approvals for talent they swear they can't find here.

First it was Americans don't want to do the work that immigrants do (cheaper, I might add), now its Americans aren't smart enough for the jobs they have to fill.

Wonder what's next?

You can't find the talent because you need a diploma to do a meniel job the answer lies in changing the structure of the high school system so it becomes oriented to pre-skilling at least part of the future work force.

What's next is you will invent a way of the computers doing all the work and the population will play video games all day, oh wait, that day has already arrived, what's next might be depopulation

The problem is selective education, along class lines. While technology has made the need for less humans for specific work, it has opened up more need for the technical training to understand and function in a more technical society. Video games are but a tool of that reality, and a fundamental training venue. Look at the way the need for more Doctors, nurses, and technicians has grown in the health care field.

That but a small example of the areas where computer skills are needed, and a diploma is but a start. If you look at it that way you would see that there is more opportunity, than people to do what's necessary to have an efficiently progressive evolving society.

Until we refine the business model to reflect that evolution, and use more people working less hours, we cannot achieve that efficientcy, and must have a nanny state that grows, as economic circulation is cut off from parts of the population.

Eliminating those parts, as they do in China, is in my opinion, not the way to go. Nor is restricting reproductive alternatives, or choices of part of the population that needs it the most.

Well Tal you won't get employers signing on to more people working less hours, what they want is less people working more hours. Computers have made some more productive usually at the expense of lower end jobs.

So you think we should all be tech jocks but then no one wants to do the other work, so you have to be selective about who you train and for what. I know it's not democratic but it isn't a perfect world, there are some who have to be s**t kickers, even if you call them sanitary engineers but if we pay well for meniel tasks then more will want to do them, sort of turns the ideas around, instead of paying CEOs millions we should pay them no more that the lowest paid in their organisation. We would see a lot of better paid jobs very quickly and a very selective selection process. No dills allowed

What your society did was create the situation in China, you exported all the meniel tasks and expected to keep all the high paid interesting jobs. It didn't work because other people are smart too. The Chinese were smart, they got the work and used it to transform their economy, Soon there will be more chinese millionaires than there are in the US and they will be looking for someone to do the low end work Keep your eye on Africa

QUOTE by paraclete;
Well Tal you won't get employers signing on to more people working less hours, what they want is less people working more hours. Computers have made some more productive usually at the expense of lower end jobs.
Of course you are right, its more profitable to be able to assign a persons value, and extract all the money, and we call that trickle down economics, (supply, and demand) and only works if you are at the top. A flawed business model that takes the worst characteristics of slavery and applies them to a population. They replaced chains and whips with money, but they don't discriminate according to race. White people make as good a slaves as black people.


So you think we should all be tech jocks but then no one wants to do the other work, so you have to be selective about who you train and for what. I know it's not democratic but it isn't a perfect world, there are some who have to be s**t kickers, even if you call them sanitary engineers but if we pay well for meniel tasks then more will want to do them, sort of turns the ideas around, instead of paying CEOs millions we should pay them no more that the lowest paid in their organisation. We would see a lot of better paid jobs very quickly and a very selective selection process. No dills allowed
Agreed, CEO"s should make the same as garbage men, it's the reason we formed a country, All men are created equal. Now the application to that principle is still a work in progress. You can take the slaves from the master, but no way does the master give up his slaves.


What your society did was create the situation in China, you exported all the meniel tasks and expected to keep all the high paid interesting jobs. It didn't work because other people are smart too. The Chinese were smart, they got the work and used it to transform their economy,
Naw, American businesses looked at China and said oh boy look at all that cheap labor, and future customers, and off they went ZOOOOOOM! Sure they will have more millionaires just because they have more people, but their master/slave mentality will crash in on them too, because while it's a huge economy, they rely on exports from cheap labor also, and so enslave themselves to others to survive. Namely American business men. When the labor is no longer cheap, they will find that they, like us now, have been ROBBED.

American business men will always extract the money for themselves, and without them, China cannot grow, and would be just a BIG poor nation like it is now.

And by the way, we may have taken the manufacturing jobs to China (AND other countries to be sure, even to your island), and some will get rich, but we still have some VERY interesting jobs here for the next generation. Like going to MARS!! Hehehe!


Soon there will be more chinese millionaires than there are in the US and they will be looking for someone to do the low end work
They are already doing that, but until they have a robust middle class, and do away with slave master mentality, they are screwed, no matter how they manipulaate their economy.


Keep your eye on Africa.
And India, Indonesia, and yes, Australia. Once they all set some new standards for the value of their citizens and restructure the business model. That applies to us too, just so you know.

Tal you don't get it, you have identified the master slave relationship but you still think you are the master and they are the slave. Money makes slaves of everyone and right now they have the money. This is why your economy isn't recovering. They have a much longer term view than you do. You really don't understand

It's the students who need the assistance , but some oversight would be nice to rein in the fees they charge. The question is not how to make tuition more affordable, the question is why is tuition so unaffordable?
The answer is that aid to students does the most distorting... another example of government being the problem.

It is no different than the housing bubble.. Government deciding that everyone should own a home distorted the market . Government deciding everyone needed a college education paid for with guaranteed government loans distorted the market there too. Just like in the housing market ;the ones who got the loans who would not qualify under traditional lending rules were /are the ones that are most likely to default.
This also created a flood of demand on college educations which of course inflated tuitions . The colleges had to grow ;build new class rooms ;and new colleges needed to be created to meet this demand . There was also a greater demand on the need for educators . This was not met overnight so there was a greater demand on limitted classroom space and instructors . Professor and administration salaries ,health care benefits,and pensions started rising rapidly.

So now we have a bubble we can't afford to allow to burst . Enter the President to guarantee that this bubble continues into the future with guarantees that the American taxpayer will foot the bill when the students default. The President's plan ? Students can pay based on the value of the job they get immediately after their graduation . Of course no one starts in the work force on the top rung of salaries . So the student pays back based on their lower earnings... and after a number of years ,that debt is "forgiven " (the taxpayer takes on the balance) . Of course the loan is forgiven just about the time the former student enters peak earning years when the value of the eductation is finally realized .

Tom you either have paid tuition or you have free tuition, this hybrid notion is very flawed as are student loans for tuition in any form. Debt is an answer to nothing, whether it be home ownership or tuition, it is a form of bondage, enslavement

Before government guaranteed loans, private loans were given to the qualified . Everyone else saved or paid for their education by working . That's what I did. But back then ,my total obligation owed at the end (between paying as I went and taking out private loans ) was no more than the price of a new car. I don't believe in free anything .

Tal you don't get it, you have identified the master slave relationship but you still think you are the master and they are the slave. Money makes slaves of everyone and right now they have the money. This is why your economy isn't recovering. They have a much longer term view than you do. You really don't understand

You are very correct, big business DOES have a long term view, and well known, and have the means to hedge their bets against lean times, tough times, and trying times, and can make money all they want anywhere they want, simply because they have the tools, and banks and politicians to back them up.

But to say I don't get it, after seeing what's been done for the last 40 years it was easy to see the robbery that was coming. Our economy has recovered, just not for everyone, and that's NO accident for sure, and neither is the weakening of government so the oligarchy can thrive and rule the many. That's how they have always made money, using the flawed business model that's set up to extract wealth at will, and control the circulation of money.

No Clete I only understand the system too well, and most of us slaves do, but like many slaves, who would rather be powerless, and dependent, as long as you get your few crumbs which is but a crumb above the have nots, you are more than willing to go along with the status quo, and the hell with anyone else's problems with the system.

I get you hate Americans, and hate being in a system that makes you as dependent as China, in dealing with the capitalist notion, because like me, you don't like someone else assigning your value, but unlike you, I don't look down my nose and inflate my ego by denigrating yours.

Just trying to tell you to hedge your own bets, because the same money that has enslaved me, has enslaved YOU. Unless of course you are part of the so called elite class that makes policy, and can enforce it. If you are not, take off the blinders and work in your own interest.

American Capitalism is the greatest ARMY in the world, bar none. You were conquered long ago, and pssst, tell your Gods the Chinese, SO HAVE THEY!!

Before government guaranteed loans, private loans were given to the qualified . Everyone else saved or paid for their education by working . That's what I did. But back then ,my total obligation owed at the end (between paying as I went and taking out private loans ) was no more than the price of a new car. I don't believe in free anything .

Funny how that ethic has become so yesterday. But what else can you expect from a bunch of people that believe it when someone says "the more you buy the more you save"?

But to say I don't get it, after seeing whats been done for the last 40 years it was easy to see the robbery that was coming. Our economy has recovered, just not for everyone, and thats NO accident for sure, and neither is the weakening of government so the oligarchy can thrive and rule the many. Thats how they have always made money, using the flawed business model thats set up to extract wealth at will, and control the circulation of money.

No Clete I only understand the system too well, and most of us slaves do, but like many slaves, who would rather be powerless, and dependent, as long as you get your few crumbs which is but a crumb above the have nots, you are more than willing to go along with the status quo, and the hell with anyone elses problems with the system.

I get you hate Americans, and hate being in a system that makes you as dependent as China, in dealing with the capitalist notion, because like me, you don't like someone else assigning your value, but unlike you, I don't look down my nose and inflate my ego by denigrating yours.



Let me put it this way, Tal, I don't like the way america does business. The arrogance is palpable. Their FTA impose their laws on other soveriegn nations. You may think this capitalism in action but I call it imperialism. I am not dependent upon america, I am not dependent upon China. You think your system is great, but where did it get you? In debt to a staggering amount and for what? So you can build another battleship. You think you keep the world free, but you build tensions and then sell the countries arms so they will feel safer.

The whole point is your system is unsustainable. You may have done well for the last century but this is a new century and the players have changed

No Clete, I don't think our system is so great and needs massive repairs. That's why I write what I write, but to be honest, nobody holds a gun to anyone's head, and makes them sign treaties, or agreements or buy our guns, or man factories our businessmen build. The truth is for whatever reasons, we, you, and everyone else deals with others for their own self interest.

So don't get mad at us because you are nervous. Nothing personal, but that's business everywhere in the world. If its not, then why are you dealing with us. Oh that's right, neither me, nor you has that kind of power, or control.

So we do what our master tells us. If we are wrong in the way we do things, then that makes you just as wrong for doing it with us. Drop the hate, and I am not arrogant, just aware.

Tal you need to move away from taking my remarks personally. You agree the system is flawed but what I say to you is you are not the masters. Why do we deal with you? It is because we have something to sell and yours is a large market, beyond that we have agreements with you that lock us into buying arms from you so our forces can cooperate more effectively. So what it comes down to is we buy big ticket items from you and of course the inevietable cultural drivel that comes from hollywood, etc.

But that's the choice you make. None of us is perfect. American business ARE the masters, and they rig the system to keep it that way.

They will screw you if you deal with them, and your choice is with, or without vaseline.

Who said anything about vaseline?

Trust me, if you are going to be raped and robbed, you're better off with some vaseline. (hedge your bets, and have options that work for you).

How does vaseline stop you from been robbed?

Its just an American term. When you feel you are getting screwed.

Hello again,

Would it be good to have REGULATIONS preventing texting in cars, or is that the bothersome nanny state again?

excon

Hello again,

Would it be good to have REGULATIONS preventing texting in cars, or is that the bothersome nanny state again?

excon

On a personal basis I would say yes. At least three times this past month I gingerly passed a car that was weaving all over the highway. When I passed (and said 'Hi' with a hand jester) sure enough they were busy texting. One was using her elbow to drive. It's getting way out of hand.

Stringer

Hello again,

Would it be good to have REGULATIONS preventing texting in cars, or is that the bothersome nanny state again?

excon

Hi Ex no mobile phone use while driving is the law where I come from, and I have observed the distraction caused by the phone ringing in certain driving situations is also dangerous so regulations should be extended to turning off the phone.How's that for nanny state ban?

Next they'll say I can't have my morning coffee on my drive into work .

It will never happen ;or at least not on a national level . Individual states that have and set insurance laws can do the restrictions if they choose to ;but highway laws in NY can and should be different that laws in other regions. Here in NY it makes sense and that is the law of the state .

Also I think the NTSB is nuts to say you can't drive safely with hands free devices like blue tooths.

Look ;if they want an impact it's OK for them to educate and advocate that people put down their cell phones... it's a bridge too far for them to advocate national standards on the use of cell phones . Why not tomtom's ? I encounter drivers staring at ones mounted on their windshields . Why not the clown stuffing a Mc rib in his mouth ? Why not ban obnoxious kids in the passenger seats that distract the driver ?
I hear tired drivers cause an many accidents as drunk drivers.. and on and on. If no one was permitted to drive there would be no car accidents . There's a worthy goal !

Tom What can I tell you? If you're stuck in traffic I see the argument but I have also observed that even with bluetooth you look to see who is calling or to read a text so out on the open road it is a great tool but in traffic! Risky!

I also note your propensity to state why you should be exempt from what others are doing, perhaps it's an american thing, after all you are smarter than the rest of us or maybe it's a New York thing.

It is a state issue . In NY it may make perfect sense. But I've driven swaths of roads elsewhere where one can drive many miles and not see another car .

Smokers fiddling with lighters and flicking ashes are more of a threat . If that hot cup of coffee I drink spills I am much more distracted . There are more accidents caused by fatigued and tired drivers that nod off . Where does it end ?

It is a state issue . In NY it may make perfect sense. But I've driven swaths of roads elsewhere where one can drive many miles and not see another car .

Smokers fiddling with lighters and flicking ashes are more of a threat . If that hot cup of coffee I drink spills I am much more distracted . There are more accidents caused by fatigued and tired drivers that nod off . Where does it end ?

Hi Tom,

"Where does it end?" I would say that it ends when it becomes a significant statistic. If drinking coffee and driving were to becomes as statistically dangerous as mobile phone usage then it too would be banned ( in Australia anyway). It may or may not be a distraction , but if it were a distraction then looking at the number of driving coffee drinkers compared to the number of mobile phone users who have accidents; doesn't really rate a mention. Significant statistics require significant solutions.

Tut


Tut

I disagree because you don't know the relationship. I think that smoking and drinking coffee and driving is imbedded in the culture and the people would do it regardless of the law prohibitting it.

I am all in favor of the restrictions of texting... That takes too much away from the physical mechanics of driving . But fiddling with a cell phone and using devices like a blue tooth is no more a risk than changing stations on the radio or those GPS devices people stick on their windshields .

The problem with the recommendation is that they are taking national stats and applying them where they don't belong. Applying them regionally makes much more sense .

I'm OK with a texting ban, it takes way too much focus off the road. A total cell phone ban? When they ban car stereos, billboards, traffic signs, GPS, CBs, passengers and the cops' radios.

I'm ok with a texting ban, Hello Steve:

I KNEW you was a lib...

excon

Hello Steve:

I KNEW you was a lib...

excon

Nah, I just want idiot drivers off the same roads I'm on.

And by the way, football tonight and Saturday.

The problem with the recommendation is that they are taking national stats and applying them where they don't belong. Applying them regionally makes much more sense .

So you are saying that people where you come from are immune to the problems observed elsewhere. So how about some facts; like giving us the road accident stats for NY v The rest

Taking a look at it I would say by our standards your accident statistics are appalling and 20% of your national road accidents are the result of distracted drivers. So something must be working over here because it sure isn't the standard of our roads.

What I said was that in my area local politicians have had these restrictions already because it makes lots of sense given the density of population. I don't have to dig up stats that say there is less traffic in rural areas .
In Kansas I routinely drove 15-20 miles without seeing any other car on the road. Obviously if I'm talking on a cell in those situations all I'm putting at risk is myself and perhaps a stray road side cow.

Trouble is Tom when you are allowed to do something in one place and not another it is easy to forget

I disagree because you don't know the relationship. I think that smoking and drinking coffee and driving is imbedded in the culture and the people would do it regardless of the law prohibitting it.



Hi Tom,

We know the relationship and it exists as a correlation between mobile phone usage while driving. In other words it is a significant statistical relationship between two variables.


If scratching the back of your head while driving was made illegal then people would still do it but the important point is that LESS people would do it.


Tut

I'm ok with a texting ban, it takes way too much focus off the road. A total cell phone ban? When they ban car stereos, billboards, traffic signs, GPS, CBs, passengers and the cops' radios.


Hi Speech,

The answer wold be a bit like the answer I gave Tom.

(a) If there is a significant correlation.

(b) A ban would be practical.


Tut

Traffic fatalities in 2010 were the lowest in in the US in 62 years.
List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)
One would think that the use of cell phones would've caused a spike. This is the NTSA looking for some relevance to keep their budget. If they really want to do something significant they would examine how bs Café standards have caused auto makers to make lighter and less safe autos.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html

As I recall there is a spike in accidents causing injury and death when it snows . Maybe they should ban driving in bad weather .

You see ;this is the game they play. They know that certain laws like speed limits,drinking age ,and evidently cell phone use ;are the perusal of the states . So they confiscate money in the form of taxes ;and then reward the states that are compliant with their dictates ;and penalize the ones that don't . The states easily succumb to this black mail /bribe because the people are told that "revenue sharing " (ie a return of some of the confiscated tax dollars taken from the people) is dependent on complying with the artificial national standards ,and the people will of course demand that their states comply so they can get some of their money back.

[/URL]
Traffic fatalities in 2010 were the lowest in in the US in 62 years.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year]List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)
One would think that the use of cell phones would've caused a spike. This is the NTSA looking for some relevence to keep their budget. If they really want to do something significant they would examine how bs CAFE standards have caused auto makers to make lighter and less safe autos.
CAFE Standards Kill: Congress' Regulatory Solution to Foreign Oil Dependence Comes at a Steep Price (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html)

As I recall there is a spike in accidents causing injury and death when it snows . Maybe they should ban driving in bad weather .

You see ;this is the game they play. They know that certain laws like speed limits,drinking age ,and evidently cell phone use ;are the perusal of the states . So they confiscate money in the form of taxes ;and then reward the states that are compliant with their dictates ;and penalize the ones that don't . The states easily succumb to this black mail /bribe because the people are told that "revenue sharing " (ie a return of some of the confiscated tax dollars taken from the people) is dependent on complying with the artificial national standards ,and the people will of course demand that their states comply so they can get some of their money back.

Tom please lift you head out of the sand. 20% of american road accident casualties come from distracted driving. Now I don't know whether that is cell use, pouring hot coffee in the drivers lap or general inattention. Many were probably not alive to ask, but someone was around long enough to identify the cause. So why not shoot for another 20% reduction by removing the causes of distracted driving, whether that be beverage, smoking, cells, annoying passengers or whatever. The statistics you quoted are a very selective set of statistics try these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate


You think this is a game, a funding game. It seems that they only way sensible laws can be enacted is if someone is given an incentive. I would have thought lower casualities would be incentive enough. I say the right to life supercedes all other rights

Thankfully the NTSB only has the authority to make recommendations. It is absolutely a funding game because only through that reward/punishment does the Federal Gvt have the power to impose it's will on the states .

I say the states have a better sense of what the local traffic laws should be. In NY such restrictions are in place.. in Moose Breath Montana it probably is not such a concern and it would be a waste of police time to put a lot of effort in enforcement .

Thankfully the NTSB only has the authority to make recommendations. It is absolutely a funding game because only through that reward/punishment does the Federal Gvt have the power to impose it's will on the states .

I say the states have a better sense of what the local traffic laws should be. In NY such restrictions are in place .. in Moose Breath Montana it probably is not such a concern and it would be a waste of police time to put alot of effort in enforcement .

I don't think it matters where you are, if you are putting others at risk then a certain amout of reeducation is necessary
Poll: Most U.S. drivers distracted - USATODAY.com (http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-12-01/Most-US-drivers-engage-in-distracting-behaviors/51544554/1)

If we ban cars there will be no accidents. Insurance incentives for taking continued drivers education go a long way towards making the roads safer and drivers aware of the dangers. I takes the AAA course every 3 years and get a significant rate reduction .
Not everything in life requires laws.

if we ban cars there will be no accidents. Insurance incentives for taking continued drivers education go a long way towards making the roads safer and drivers aware of the dangers. I takes the AAA course every 3 years and get a significant rate reduction .
Not everything in life requires laws.


Hi Tom,

Well, you are responsible person when it comes to being part of the driving community. Unfortunately it only requires people who don't exercise responsibility to create carnage.

If you exercise responsibility on the roads then there shouldn't be a problem for you if these responsibilities become codified.

No conflict here? Or is there an ideological conflict?

Tut

I do not see the constitutional authority for Federal Government directives . As I've pointed out already they use a system of back door funding mechanisms to get their will on issues like speed limits and drinking age etc. You can be assured that if they did they would make such a directive even though it would be a stupid law for much of the geographic territory of the nation.

Now I have done some digging into the specific case that prompted the NTSB to make it's recommendation . It involved a kid texting (already illegal in Missouri where the pileup occurred ) and this little tid bit of detail they failed to emphasis .



First, the Missouri crash was largely caused by more mundane safety issues that the NTSB seems to have deliberately downplayed. For all the discussion of the dangers of texting and driving, the NTSB report contains this rather significant finding: “Had the driver of the following school bus maintained the recommended minimum distance from the lead school bus, she would have been able to avoid the accident."

That’s right: Don’t follow too closely, just like they teach you in driver’s ed. And why did the first school bus rear-end the pickup? According to the NTSB, that was “the result of the bus driver’s inattention to the forward roadway, due to excessive focus on a motorcoach parked on the shoulder of the road."

So, despite the focus on texting as a cause of this particular accident, and on this accident as purported evidence that drivers should be banned from using portable devices, NTSB’s own report shows that the drivers involved in this scary wreck were involved because of driver inattention having nothing to do with cellphones, texting, or any other personal electronic devices. It was just the old-fashioned kind of driver inattention that has caused most accidents since the beginning of the automobile age, and that could have been prevented by a little attention to proper following distance and the road ahead.



Yet the No. 1 recommendation of the NTSB to the states is to "ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers." This selective focus suggests an agenda, and certainly those of us who have been paying attention to the various pronouncements coming from the NTSB and other highway-safety advocates have noticed a strain of hostility to cellphones and other devices for quite some time, despite a paucity of evidence suggesting that such devices are especially dangerous. (As the Cato Institute’s Radley Balko notes, while the number of cellphones on the road has skyrocketed in recent decades, traffic deaths and traffic accidents have declined.)

My suspicions here are only supported by the NTSB’s leap from the already-banned texting to something completely different: talking. The Missouri accident had nothing to do with hands-free talking, and it’s not at all clear to me that talking on a hands-free cellphone is any more distracting to drivers than talking to passengers in the car—or having screaming kids in the back seat, something that the NTSB has not, as yet, sought to ban.

Furthermore, it hasn’t been proven that eliminating electronic distractions is a path to safer driving, as the Missouri accident shows. The fact is, drivers function despite all sorts of distractions: car radios, passengers, weather, roadside signs, intentionally distracting highway billboards, erratic behavior from other drivers, and so on. Learning to focus on the task at hand despite all that noise is an important part of learning to drive, and if we’re hiring school-bus drivers who have trouble paying attention to the road and maintaining proper following distances, we’ve got bigger problems than those posed by the proliferation of gadgets.

The NTSB’s emphasis on cellphones to the almost-complete exclusion of these other distractions renders its conclusion suspect and not very useful. Perhaps its members, too, need to learn to avoid distractions.

Why the Proposed Car Cellphone Ban Is Wrong - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/distracted-driving-or-distracted-policymaking-why-the-proposed-car-cellphone-ban-is-wrong-6617334?click=pm_latest)

In fact ;where there have been studies on the effect of such bans we have found there is no drop in highway accidents .


We present evidence from observed accidents in California over a period in which the state implemented a law to ban hand-held cell phone use while driving a motor vehicle. In contrast too much of the previous research in this area, we treat the implementation of the policy as a quasi-natural experiment and draw on empirical data to determine whether mean daily accidents fell after California implemented the ban. To control for unobserved time-varying effects that could be correlated with the policy, we employ three regression discontinuity strategies: narrowing the time window of analysis, using a highly exible global polynomial, and using a local linear regression design. The RD approach has advantages over previous empirical work on this topic, namely that we avoid using cross-sectional panel data that are likely susceptible to signicant unobserved heterogeneity and omitted factors. We find no evidence of a state-wide decrease in accidents as a result of the ban. While our results are specific to California, cell phone bans in other jurisdictions that have similar enforcement and penalty parameters could be expected to have similar effects.
While this non-result may seem surprising to people accustomed to seeing drivers using cell phones doing careless or dangerous things on the highway, drivers were doing careless and dangerous things on highways long before the invention of the cell phone.

http://inside.mines.edu/~dkaffine/CELLACCIDENTS.pdf

So while the nanny state makes y'all feel good ;it really doesn't effect much change. But it does give cops a reason to pull you over and give you a ticket... good for local revenues .

Hi Speech,

The answer wold be a bit like the answer I gave Tom.

(a) If there is a significant correlation.

(b) A ban would be practical.

A thorough section on this in drivers ed would be practical as well. I know there's a correlation but I think we are becoming more aware of what a distraction cell phones can be. Focus on the road no matter what you're doing and things will be fine.

As tom's quote said, it's usually the "old-fashioned kind of driver inattention that has caused most accidents since the beginning of the automobile age."

Raising awareness is a good thing, and any incentive to think twice about being safe is a good thing too. Now maybe there are many dangers we cannot control, but we can do whatever it takes to control what we can.

I was taught back in the day it only takes a second to make a choice that screws yourself over, and someone else too. But be it from a thoughtful choice, or fear of a ticket, getting where you are going safely is the goal.

Prevention, as unattractive and futile as it may seem, has its place, NO DOUBT, because you never complain until the damn fools actions affect you. Then we raise all kinds of holy hell. When it happens to others, lets be honest, who cares?

We go about our business, and scream the government is all in our business when you get that ticket. With more than 240 million vehicles in America, the chances of an irresponsible fool driving near you or a loved one, is very high. Even if that darn fool is you or a loved one.

if we ban cars there will be no accidents. Insurance incentives for taking continued drivers education go a long way towards making the roads safer and drivers aware of the dangers. I takes the AAA course every 3 years and get a significant rate reduction .
Not everything in life requires laws.

So we go from the sublime to the ridiculous. We understand you are the exception to every rule Tom. Laws exist because the general population is too stupid or self focused to exercise common sense. If everyone followed your lead there would be no unemployment in the US as everyone would be course lecturers helping the insurance companies reduce premiums and the roadtoll would fall because of all those cars not being used.

The statistics are clear compare the road accident statistics between your country and mine, no prize for guessing which one has a ban on cell phone usage in cars, the same comparison is valid for other countries. Anyway this argument has run its course because you have gotten back on your favourite hobby horse which of course is your constitutional rights, you have the right to kill yourself if you wish but not the right to kill others

Laws exist because the general population is too stupid or self focused to exercise common sense

You really are the poster spokesperson for the nanny-state .

You really are the poster spokesperson for the nanny-state .

Not at all Tom I believe in freedom but as I said you don't have the right to kill other people no matter what you might think your rights are, so I don't have the right to act in an irresponsible manner and it has nothing to do with the nanny state and a lot to do with respect of the rights of others. You see Tom where I come from we don't get into an argument about big government every time some one says this is a problem, and we don't rush about shouting state rights.

Our next nanny state ban will be plain packaging of cigarettes and you can bet big american tobacco are in a panic state about that, that, of course, followed the requirement for the fast food industry to display nutritional information about their products, another tilt at the international conglomerates who control the industry. We regard ourselves as progressive and so far democracy remains unthreatened.

A thorough section on this in drivers ed would be practical as well. I know there's a correlation but I think we are becoming more aware of what a distraction cell phones can be. Focus on the road no matter what you're doing and things will be fine.

As tom's quote said, it's usually the "old-fashioned kind of driver inattention that has caused most accidents since the beginning of the automobile age."


Hi Speech,

Yes, but why add another distraction to the large number we already have while driving.


Tut

I do not see the constitutional authority for Federal Government directives . As I've pointed out already they use a system of back door funding mechanisms to get their will on issues like speed limits and drinking age etc. You can be assured that if they did they would make such a directive even though it would be a stupid law for much of the geographic territory of the nation.

Now I have done some digging into the specific case that prompted the NTSB to make it's recommendation . It involved a kid texting (already illegal in Missouri where the pileup occured ) and this little tid bit of detail they failed to emphasis .



Why the Proposed Car Cellphone Ban Is Wrong - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/distracted-driving-or-distracted-policymaking-why-the-proposed-car-cellphone-ban-is-wrong-6617334?click=pm_latest)




Hi Tom,

Popular Mechanics should stick to mechanics. Too many A caused B assumptions. We can safely say that alcohol causes liver damage. The reason being is because we have a good understanding of how alcohol attacks liver cells.

When it comes to road accidents there are too many variables, especially in a complicated scenario like this one. Contributing factors would be the best we can come up with. No doubt there were many. I am sure that a person texting while driving would be very high on the list.

"Texting while driving is already illegal in Missouri for under 21".. If you are over 21 you can text while you drive?

P.S. The article only supports what the research tells us. That is, there is a correlation when it comes to mobile phone usage and accidents

http://inside.mines.edu/~dkaffine/CELLACCIDENTS.pdf

So while the nanny state makes y'all feel good ;it really doesn't effect much change. But it does give cops a reason to pull you over and give you a ticket .... good for local revenues .


Interesting, but...

Just wondering why RDD statistical analysis was used in this case. I would have though this method is better suited to controlled experiments.

I don't really see the point of setting up an null hypothesis for these particular types of studies. Isn't the statistical power of these types of studies always lower than randomized experiments?

Why change from linear type analysis unless you are trying to prove something that cannot be demonstrated otherwise. Unless of course you are trying to demonstrate a political point.

Anyone familiar enough with statistical analysis who can help? Not really my area.

Tut

OK then I'll use the government's own study then . A 2009National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA)[a different alphabet soup Federal agency with overlapping authorities... such is the nature of the Lavithian] study found that 80% of all car wrecks are caused by drivers eating or drinking... not cellphone use... with eating food and coffee drinking being the top offenders.

Again ;I have no problem with states making restrictive rules as they see fit. I especially have no problem with laws against texting . But talking on a cell phone ;especially utilizing hands free devices, is no more distracting then choosing a cd to put in the car stereo ,and much less a distraction than many other common driving activities.

Again ;I have no problem with states making restrictive rules as they see fit. I especially have no problem with laws against texting . But talking on a cell phone ;especially utilizing hands free devices, is no more distracting then choosing a cd to put in the car stereo ,and much less a distraction than many other common driving activities.



Hi Tom,


I agree, but...

Why would you want to add another common distraction? Wouldn't it make more sense to try and eliminate as may distraction as we can?

Tut

So by Tom's research the answer is simple you can improve ameriacn raod safety instantly by banning all fast food drive throughs and noones rights is infringed because they can still buy the food. Along with this I would recommend a ban on consumption of food and beverages in motor vehicles. Another nanny state ban achieved.

Tut , not sure how it works in Aussie... but here there are many small private business owners who make a living on the road. Their territories usually cover hundreds of miles. Often they don't have office managers and secretaries who screen the incoming calls or contact customers . A missed call is often a business opportunity lost ,and often pulling off the road to answer a call also is a job opportunity lost (this is true with private contractors here and sales people in rural areas ) .

For ages ;truckers used CB devices to contact other truckers and their own dispatchers in their business and no one ever said that their usage was a big public menace. I can't see how using a cell phone is any different than the use of the CB radio in the past.

This propaganda that it's just a bunch of kids texting each other is false. Denying the use of cell phones in the course of business is to deny business opportunity .

Tut , not sure how it works in Aussie... but here there are many small private business owners who make a living on the road. Their territories usually cover hundreds of miles. Often they don't have office managers and secretaries who screen the incoming calls or contact customers . A missed call is often a business opportunity lost ,and often pulling off the road to answer a call also is a job opportunity lost (this is true with private contractors here and sales people in rural areas ) .


Tom two things, don't you have answering services over there and what did these guys do before the invention of the cell phone.



For ages ;truckers used CB devices to contact other truckers and their own dispatchers in their business and no one ever said that their usage was a big public menace. I can't see how using a cell phone in the conduct of their business is any different than the use of the CB radio in the past.

I think you might find a CB radio is incapable of sending text messages and professional drivers are a slightly different bag to the average air head.


This propaganda that it's just a bunch of kids texting each other is false. Denying the use of cell phones in the course of business is to deny business opportunity .

So now we have it, its an infringement of some commercial right so therefore it ought be allowed. Perhaps you could have a selective law where a licensed business person could do it and everyoneelse can't.
I say you can't tell the difference, texting is a distraction. Dialing while driving is a distraction and carrying on an argument while driving is a distraction.

Yeah and having noisy kids in the passengers seats are too. Seeing a scantly clad beauty on the side of the road is too. Changing a 5 cd stereo is a distraction too. Women putting on make-up /men shaving... I've seen it all.
Getting behind a wheel implies responsibility for your actions . If a cop sees someone driving erratically they have the responsibility to pull them over anyway . Driving erratically itself is a ticketable offense here.
So this on a national level is unwarranted and unnecessary.

Getting behind a wheel implies responsibility for your actions . If a cop sees someone driving erratically they have the responsibility to pull them over anyway . Driving erratically itself is a ticketable offense here.
So this on a national level is unwarranted and unnecessary.


Too many people knowing their rights but not their responsibilities. I don't know how many times that needs to be demonstrated in all areas of life.

Police are responsible for enforcing the law because that is a requirement of the job. Knowing the road rules is a requirement of obtaining a licence.
Because you know what is required doesn't mean you are going to exercise responsibility.

Tut

Driving erratically itself is a ticketable offense here.
So this on a national level is unwarranted and unnecessary

Now texting/using a cell phone while driving gets you a ticket. That should make you think before you kill somebody.

Now texting/using a cell phone while driving gets you a ticket. That should make you think before you kill somebody.

Its not in the name of safety so please don't even try to go there. Its just another avenue for the government to step into and intrude on our lives in personal ways.

Tell that to the families of the victims.

Its not in the name of safety so please dont even try to go there. Its just another avenue for the government to step into and intrude on our lives in personal ways.


Irresponsible people need to be made responsible. If you behave in a responsible fashion and make a commitment not to text while driving then what is the problem if this responsibility is put into law?


Tut

Irresponsible people need to be made responsible. If you behave in a responsible fashion and make a commitment not to text while driving then what is the problem if this responsibility is put into law?


Tut

The main issue I have is that what is really going on behind the law. Its not designed to help with safety its designed to step into your life and intrude into your privacy. There is already court battles taking place because of intrusion. If they believe you were texting how are they going to prove it? They will take the phone and download everything on it including where you have been and what has been said and to whom it has been said. Not just the incodent but whatever is on there. They have tried it out already in Michigain already this year.

We all know its bad to drive drunk. And there are laws against it. But as a free citizen should you be pulled over and asked for all your papers just because your driving down the road and they are looking at you under the guise of drunk driving?

I for one say no. It gives the government too broad of power for their brush to be painted upon the landscape.

Tell that to the families of the victims.

Then why not ban cell phone altogether? Sue the crap out of the cell phone companies because they have the technology to stop you from texting if your moving down the road. What would you have me tell them? Life as well as death happens. I know Ive seen it in the over 1 million miles I have driven.

We all know its bad to drive drunk. And there are laws against it. But as a free citizen should you be pulled over and asked for all your papers just because your driving down the road and they are looking at you under the guise of drunk driving?




Hi Dad,

Of course they should and they do in Australia on a regular basis. Police can pull a motorist over and request a breath test any time and anywhere. This is regardless how you are driving.

Police set up road blocks on roads requiring drivers to pull over when directed for a random breath test. You don't have this?


Tut

The main issue I have is that what is really going on behind the law. Its not designed to help with safety its designed to step into your life and intrude into your privacy. There is already court battles taking place because of intrusion. If they believe you were texting how are they going to prove it? They will take the phone and download everything on it including where you have been and what has been said and to whom it has been said. Not just the incodent but whatever is on there. They have tried it out already in Michigain already this year.

We all know its bad to drive drunk. And there are laws against it. But as a free citizen should you be pulled over and asked for all your papers just because your driving down the road and they are looking at you under the guise of drunk driving?

I for one say no. It gives the government too broad of power for thier brush to be painted upon the landscape.

You must have a class of cop over there with nothing better to do, probably because you have another layer of law enforcement. Despite what you might regard as restrictive laws regarding cell use, drink driving, etc it is fairly rare to see a cop on our roads and as long as you behave in a reasonable manner you rarely get pulled over unless you are a motor bike or have a dodgy looking vehicle. The exception might be Friday night/Saturday and holidays when the booze bus is operating or the last day of the month. The point I'm making is a law doesn't mean intrusive behaviour by police (have to make the quota). Once we were allowed to have radar detectors, now outlawed. I expect that if cell phones are a problem police will be given detection devices.

Hi Dad,

Of course they should and they do in Australia on a regular basis. Police can pull a motorist over and request a breath test any time and anywhere. This is regardless how you are driving.

Police set up road blocks on roads requiring drivers to pull over when directed for a random breath test. You don't have this?


Tut

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

. The point I'm making is a law doesn't mean intrusive behaviour by police (have to make the quota). Once we were allowed to have radar detectors, now outlawed. I expect that if cell phones are a problem police will be given detection devices.

Here it is for you in a nutshell. If you allow the law (police and other managing agencies) any slack and not be diligent then they will start to intrude on your rights in that name. Its like hearing its for the children. It's a game to strip rights from the people. I watched as a seat belt law was voted in. Makes sense everyone agrees it makes you safer. The law stated that if you were pulled over and weren't wearing one then you get a ticket. OK, sounds good so far. Let the offender beware. In less then 2 years time it morphed into having roadblocks to check for seatbelts and being pulled over simply because your not wearing one. That wasn't what was voted in. Give them an inch and they rob you blind.

Do you actually think it is right for the government to have all the information you have on your cellphone just in case you did something wrong? To me no. They should have a warrant to get that information. You have a right in this country to privacy and to be free to move about without interference. Yes life throws curves your way. But its not the governments job cradle to grave. If you act irresponsibly then let them put you away. Otherwise they should leave you alone.

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

Hi again Dad.

I would say it matters because it makes people too afraid to drink and drive. I'd imagine the same thing works for seat belts. You wear one because you don't know when you will be pulled over for a seatbelt check, i.e. pay a fine.

Tut

Its like any other ticket you get, go to court and pay the fine, or fight it. Inconvenient, and expense maybe, but like anything it CAN be used as a pretext, to check the car, driver ID, papers.

Yeah then we got PROFILING, and nobody cares about that much, because they were profiling before cell phones, or seat belts.

So while I can see the argument against another excuse/reason to hassle, harass, and fill the ticket book, with minority faces, if you aren't breaking the rules and being a responsible citizen, you have nothing to hide, or fear from a cop right? RIGHT?

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

Because Dad this is how you catch those who think they are fine but are over the limit. It also means there is a visible police presence, no hiding in the shurbary as I saw one cop car recently

Here it is for you in a nutshell. If you allow the law (police and other managing agencies) any slack and not be diligent then they will start to intrude on your rights in that name. Its like hearing its for the children. Its a game to strip rights from the people. I watched as a seat belt law was voted in. Makes sense everyone agrees it makes you safer. The law stated that if you were pulled over and werent wearing one then you get a ticket. OK, sounds good so far. Let the offender beware. In less then 2 years time it morphed into having roadblocks to check for seatbelts and being pulled over simply because your not wearing one. That wasnt what was voted in. Give them an inch and they rob you blind.




You vote on how a law should be enforced?




Do you actually think it is right for the government to have all the information you have on your cellphone just incase you did something wrong? To me no. They should have a warrant to get that information. You have a right in this country to privacy and to be free to move about without interference. Yes life throws curves your way. But its not the governments job cradle to grave. If you act irresponsibly then let them put you away. Otherwise they should leave you alone.




This is the bit I don't get.

In Australia police don't have the right to confiscate mobile phones because you were texting while driving. They do where your are? If so I would find that very surprising.

Tut

Tut . Here is NY they confiscate cars if the driver was over the alcohol limit. Often the owner never gets them back and they end up being auctioned . Not sure if they are empowered to take the cell phones from offenders.

Cal's point is that the only proof someone is using the cell is to get access to the phone records . That also allows them to see other contacts made on the phone.
Surely all the people concerned about civil liberties for terrorists should show similar concerns for the rights of the motorists .

You vote on how a law should be enforced?




This is the bit I don't get.

In Australia police don't have the right to confiscate mobile phones because you were texting while driving. They do where your are? If so I would find that very surprising.

Tut


You have 2 parts here. So I will address them seperatly.

1) In California they have a process called referendum. It is a means for the voters voice to be heard at the ballot box. It can create or direct to be created laws. Like the seat belt law or the helmet laws. It is our peoples way to have a representative voice into legislative law.


2) They don't take away the actual cell phone. What they can do is take it to their patrol car and download everything from it. I feel this is just an avenue for the government to step in and broaden the search to where it goes beyond the scope of original intention.

Here is some info on what has been happening so far. So you can get the idea of what Im talking about.

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/michigan-police-cellphone-data-extraction-devices-aclu-objects/story?id=13428178)

So while I can see the argument against another excuse/reason to hassle, harass, and fill the ticket book, with minority faces, if you aren't breaking the rules and being a responsible citizen, you have nothing to hide, or fear from a cop right?? RIGHT?

Love this argument. Will you allow the police in at anytime into your home or your personal space just because the "feel" you could have done something wrong? How do you feel about the fourth amendment? Should we just throw it away since really if your not doing anything wrong you don't need to ever use it.

In this case its about personal information. Which is very broad in its scope. Its not like speeding where a line is drawn. Or drunken driving where certain amounts may be acceptable. Its about entering a grey area. One that shouldn't be. If they observe you texting then it should be limited to that. Just like if your speeding and they "see" you they are limited to that observation only.


Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/michigan-police-cellphone-data-extraction-devices-aclu-objects/story?id=13428178)


http://thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp


See the above quoted article as to how they have broadened their scope.

I doubt you find a cop that's limited to observing you breaking the law, and has no power to exercise his power to investigate.

They have been doing it for centuries, what ever the law is at the time, haven't they??

I doubt you find a cop thats limited to observing you breaking the law, and has no power to exercise his power to investigate.

They have been doing it for centuries, what ever the law is at the time, haven't they???

Not really. Only on more severe crimes do they mandate opening an investigation. For simple more non severe crimes like speeding or j-walking they usually go no further then observation. If they see you then they have a right to act upon it. If a crime is in progress it involves a different area of the law. But most others are through observation. Isn't it like that where you live?

Most cops can pass on J walking, but that's up to them, you can still get a ticket for being wrong. That's how it is here, sometimes they warn you that you are wrong, sometimes they write the ticket.

The more wrong they find, the further they go.

Most cops can pass on J walking, but thats up to them, you can still get a ticket for being wrong. Thats how it is here, sometimes they warn you that you are wrong, sometimes they write the ticket.

The more wrong they find, the further they go.

Exactly. But in the case of them downloading your information from a cellphone they are taking everything and can have a look at it just for a texting violation.

Lets use as an example the "I never do anything illegal so I dont have to worry about it attitude".

So you're a person male/female and on your cellphone for whatever reason you have a personal picture of your spouse/husband or girlfriend/boyfriend. Your all adults and all over 18. Is that legal? With respect to the law it is. You're an adult and your allowed those adult things. So now your being pulled over. Should the police be allowed to see that picture too or did you really have it as a private thing?

In my opinion no they shouldn't see it nor who you talk to or where you have been. Not for simple texting. That is way too far of an intrusion into your privacy. What about that text you sent... you know the one a week ago about wanting to kill your child because they broke a window on your neighbors new car?? Sure you were blowing off steam. Its just an expression right?? In the hands of the police it could mean child abuse even when it wasn't. Think about that. Do you actually favor that type of intrusion? Not me. Not without a warrant.

You have 2 parts here. So I will address them seperatly.

1) In California they have a process called referendum. It is a means for the voters voice to be heard at the ballot box. It can create or direct to be created laws. Like the seat belt law or the helmet laws. It is our peoples way to have a representative voice into legislative law.




I get that bit, but what I am saying is that once a law is enacted you don't get to vote on how it is policed.





2) They dont take away the actual cell phone. What they can do is take it to thier patrol car and download everything from it. I feel this is just an avenue for the government to step in and broaden the search to where it goes beyond the scope of original intention.

Here is some info on what has been happening so far. So you can get the idea of what Im talking about.

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/michigan-police-cellphone-data-extraction-devices-aclu-objects/story?id=13428178)


If they are doing this then the police are breaking the law. I'm not a lawyer but I would say that this type of evidence would be inadmissible proof of texting because it was obtained illegally.

Tut

I get that bit, but what I am saying is that once a law is enacted you don't get to vote on how it is policed.




If they are doing this then the police are breaking the law. I'm not a lawyer but I would say that this type of evidence would be inadmissible proof of texting because it was obtained illegally.

Tut



Once the law is actually put into the books then it retains a life of its own. Its out of the hands of the people other then to overturn the law itself. The people still have that power but then its up to the courts to uphold it.

Its not breaking the law if they ask your permission first. Its stated in the article that what they were doing was asking people to allow them to do it and thinking that they weren't ever doing anything wrong they gave permission. From there the entire content was open for evaluation. Not just for text but everything including where you are and where you were etc. Everything.

What I fear is in passing a law without more formal protection then they will intrude upon privacy on a grand scale. After all was that person really texting or just dialing a number. If they were dialing then it wasn't illegal to begin with.

Here is a link as to how it works in California. Not all states have this same process.

California ballot proposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition)

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/michigan-police-cellphone-data-extraction-devices-aclu-objects/story?id=13428178)

While its no telling what's really going on the fact that no one has complained is telling. This is but an example of where technology has developed faster than a law to govern them.

What does that have to do with a law against texting while driving, or is this a fear of big brother, or a police state?

What does that have to do with a law against texting while driving, or is this a fear of big brother, or a police state?

What it has to do with it is that the only real way for them to "know" what your doing is to download your records. Unless they "observe" you texting in an obvious fashion then they don't really know if your dialing or not. It is a catch 22. I don't want to give away my rights to privacy nor anyone else's without just cause.


A quote from this article:
Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops (http://thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp)


A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.
"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."

If your curious about the device itself then here is a forensic white paper that explains how powerful it is.

Cellebrite UFED – iPhone Forensics White Paper viaForensics (http://viaforensics.com/education/white-papers/iphone-forensics/cellebrite-ufed/)

Another Nanny state update aka Occupy the school cafeteria aka students revolt against Michelle Obama's draconian diet.

L.A. schools' healthful school lunches panned by LAUSD students - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/17/local/la-me-food-lausd-20111218)

Many of the meals are being rejected en masse. Participation in the school lunch program has dropped by thousands of students. Principals report massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrées being thrown away. Students are ditching lunch, and some say they're suffering from headaches, stomach pains and even anemia. At many campuses, an underground market for chips, candy, fast-food burgers and other taboo fare is thriving.

LOL, like who couldn't have seen that coming? I mean besides Michelle. Doesn't' she know there are kids starving all over the world and thanks to her we have "massive" food waste at home now?

They threw the black bean burgers away . The spark of Samuel Adams, the Sons of Liberty... the original Tea partiers

Kids don't run nothing. In my house you ate what you had in front of you, or you didn't eat.

Just wait until the parents get involved, as they should be. When did we start letting kids do as they please??

Yeah I wasn't given such option. My mom packed a sandwich for me to eat. Sounds like that is a better deal than the gruel the schools are trying to pass off as a palatable alternative. When I did get lunch money, mom wasn't around when I traded the money in for ice cream instead of the barfaroni the school tried to serve me.

You don't know when you are well off, we have manged to survive without school canteens, I wonder how we did it, and yet wherever these are established there is controversy about the standard of nutrition, etc. Yet you think that providing nutritous food as distinct from fast food crapolla is an expression of the nany state. Why not just contract McDonalds and KFC to runn the school canteens

Great idea. Although I would opt for something like pizza hut . As you know ;a pizza has all the food groups and is a complete nutritious meal .

great idea. although I would opt for something like pizza hut . As you know ;a pizza has all the food groups and is a complete nutritious meal .

Yes this is why we observe pizza joints going out of business more rapidly than banks in Europe, the public don't want to eat healthy.

Nanny state update, the new, illegally appointed consumer protection czar wants to examine overdraft fees (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/consumer-finance-watchdog-probes-overdraft-fees-15763127#.T0Vid3lnDSt) because apparently, the feds think Americans are too stupid to know how to avoid them.


"Overdraft practices have the capacity to inflict serious economic harm on the people who can least afford it," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. "We want to learn how consumers are affected, and how well they are able to anticipate and avoid paying penalty fees."

I can anticipate paying penalty fees no problem, I don't spend more money than I have in the bank. Seems a no-brainer to me but then we have a president and Treasury Secretary (who couldn't do his taxes) that think our federal debt rising to 900 percent of the GDP is a good thing.

Don't spend more than you have in the bank and voilà, no overdraft fees.

You don't spend more money than you have in the bank? But observe, your nation does just that, can you expect the population to do otherwise?

It is a little known axiom that what goes with leadership comes down on the population, so a spendthrift government begets a spendthrift nation

Illegal Bank Fees - Reports (http://www.illegalbankfees.com/reportsandnews.html)

Bank Overdraft Fees Attorney | Deceptive Bank Practices (http://baronandbudd.com/bank-overdraft-attorney/)

As we see the banks have already been found guilty of illegal overdraft fees, yet they still do it. Why because they can target the poor and uneducated, and make big money. Nice try Speech, but to make this a simplistic criticism of others especially youngsters with NO experience takes away from the culpibility of the big banks who make their money illegally through these sophisticated practices. That's why they are looking into it.

All they big banks have been sued, and lost, and forced to pay, and still they do it. Go figure.

But of course its easier too blame the victims and not the crooks.

Yes Tal the problem of bank gouging their customers is everywhere but in a victory for the customer our banks were prevented from charging a break fee when a mortgage is discharged early ~- a tick for the nanny state

For what reason would anyone not want someone not working in their behalf against those very corporations that have ripped the consumer of so easily in the past?

Well Tal I think it is because they have a religious affiliation with capitalism, that is they worship money.

Capitalism is not a religious concept, in fact, it is antithesis of what most religions teach. The idea that you should grab all you can is man's idea not God's. Your nation suggest it trusts in God but in fact this isn't true, just a nice sounding platitude

you don't spend more money than you have in the bank? But observe, your nation does just that, can you expect the population to do otherwise?

Um, yes I commented on that, "we have a president and Treasury Secretary (who couldn't do his taxes) that think our federal debt rising to 900 percent of the GDP is a good thing."


It is a little known axiom that what goes with leadership comes down on the population, so a spendthrift government begets a spendthrift nation

How about this instead, a government that tells its people it's someone else's fault they're irresponsible begets an irresponsible nation.

well tal I think it is because they have a religious affiliation with capitalism, that is they worship money.

Capitalism is not a religious concept, in fact, it is antithesis of what most religions teach. The idea that you should grab all you can is man's idea not god's. Your nation suggest it trusts in god but in fact this isn't true, just a nice sounding platitude

Totally in agreement!!


QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Um, yes I commented on that, "we have a president and Treasury Secretary (who couldn't do his taxes) that think our federal debt rising to 900 percent of the GDP is a good thing."
He never said it was a good thing, no one did, but they do say it was necessary thing to do, in light of the robbery perpetrated by the banking sector on the GLOBAL economy.


How about this instead, a government that tells its people it's someone else's fault they're irresponsible begets an irresponsible nation.
So the people are responsible for the actions of Wall Street, regulators, and Banks, REALLY??

well Tal I think it is because they have a religious affiliation with capitalism, that is they worship money.

Capitalism is not a religious concept, in fact, it is antithesis of what most religions teach. The idea that you should grab all you can is man's idea not God's. Your nation suggest it trusts in God but in fact this isn't true, just a nice sounding platitude

Wrong, we are no more greedy than anyone else. In fact and you know this, we are the most generous nation on the planet. The amount we give privately and publicly dwarfs everyone else no matter how you spin it.

What we value is freedom.

What we value is freedom.Hello again,

I'm AMAZED by how quickly you wingers ZOOM between your absolute hatred of the nanny state here, and the thread where you support a government official being posted in every doctors office in the nation...

And, you do it without blinking an eye...

excon

Forget it EX, righties DO NOT compromise on their right to tell you how wrong you are about everything.

Nothing to be amazed by, I hate the nanny state but love babies. They should have rights, too.


QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Um, yes I commented on that, "we have a president and Treasury Secretary (who couldn't do his taxes) that think our federal debt rising to 900 percent of the GDP is a good thing."

QUOTE by talaniman;
He never said it was a good thing, no one did, but they do say it was necessary thing to do, in light of the robbery perpetrated by the banking sector on the GLOBAL economy.

NO, what he said was "what our budget does is get our deficit down to a sustainable path". Debt at 900 percent of GDP is not a "sustainable path".

Geez dude even Ryan, and Romney show no deficit reduction for two to ten years in their plans. Why, because of the recession. If that's not a priority, grow the economy, then deficit reduction won't work either. Everyone knows that. I like babies to.

The path to a balanced budget is budget cutting . The government collects plenty of revenue . The red ink is on the spending side of the ledger .

The path to a balanced budget is fair taxation, balanced spending, and a growing economy, AND TIME.

Even Laffer couldn't balance a budget without adding revenue streams. Cutting spending during a recession is counter productive to growth. And cutting those who have little or nothing is discrimination.

And cutting those who have little or nothing is discrimination.

No one has any plan to cut the safety net for those who NEED it. Just as no one had any plan to ban birth control. You guys are making up boogeymen and I have news for you, these boogeymen don't exist.

The path to a balanced budget is budget cutting . The government collects plenty of revenue . The red ink is on the spending side of the ledger .

Tom are you certain you know what you are advocating, The shortfall of revenue covering expenditure is massive, to do what you suggest you would need to dismantle the military, social welfare, obamacare as well as much of the administration. The economic impacts would deepen the recession and lead to civil unrest. You are talking about cutting the budget by about 40%. One of the big budget items is paying for the massive debt and you can't wipe that out with a stroke of the pen, you need to turn the whole revenue-expenditure equation on its head and that takes increasing taxation

Even Laffer couldn't balance a budget without adding revenue streams.

The revenue came with tax cutting stimulating the economy... not spending .It reached record levels in both the 1980s and later in the last decade . What Laffer couldn't do ;and neither could Reagan ;is cap the spending that came out of the O'Neill Congress . Only in the 1990s ,with Newt's budgets and Clintoon triangulating and , a mini dot-com boom (those evil corporations ) did the budget balance.

We have serious problems with both the levels of spending and the unfunded "entitlements "(made worse because of that beer money coming to you in the payroll tax cut that directly funds SS and Medicare .) You see Greece ? I really don't want that here. But "progressive " policies enacted over the last 50 years have brought us there one step behind the democratic socialist states of Europe.

So Tom you are saying you need Newt back again?

No one has any plan to cut the safety net for those who NEED it. Just as no one had any plan to ban birth control. You guys are making up boogeymen and I have news for you, these boogeymen don't exist.

So I guess the Ryan plan to privatise medicare and give everyone a voucher is a figment of leftwings imagination huh? And in his plan we grandfather in the ones who are 55, but after that the ones paying into the social security, and medicare plans get reduced benefits managed by a for profit corporation. And that's how we get a balanced budget in 15 years.

REALLY??

The budget was balanced by closing military bases, and shrinking the military. And a tax that promoted expanding the tax base. The government didn't have to spend because there were enough revenues from an expanded base (23 million jobs), to run surpluses killed by GHB, and his congress. That's when the massive extraction began, right after workers took health benefits instead of wages, as companies downsized and went over seas. First to Mexico, then all over the globe.

Nobody listened to the cries of OUTSOURCING, and slave labor by foreign countries. Or even the notion that cheap labor could be found in backward places and we couldn't compete with the slaves they found overseas. Naw blame it on progressives for living the American Dream, fueled by debt and deception of the corporate class, and the right wingers who cheered them on after getting robbed blind and scared to death. Poor people were okay until you became one, then you were cursed for life as a lazy bum.

I was there. And I'm watching it happen all over again. Righties love it, when the government is small and weak and lets the corporations do as they please, and the churches bring us back to the morality only they have, and you don't. Righties seek to destroy from within, and that's their whole agenda, and always have been. All this in the name of freedom to be part of the haves and taking from the have nothings.

So the economy struggles on at the perfect pace for the right wing agenda so their leftist immoral enemies are so busy hustling beans to notice this is the same script we saw during the 30's. Again the solution will be a long hard war with some foreign country, bent on ruling the freakin' world.

Or, maybe not, VOTE DEMOCRATIC, and pay no attention to those clowns on the right. They are great at throwing pies in each other face, but its foolish to take them seriously.

Or we could end up like the GREEKS, in the streets throwing rocks.

The British government introduced a higher tax rate on the rich in 2010, promising that it would bring in added revenue. But, as any sensible person could have guessed, just the opposite has happened.

Gordon Brown's Labour Party government launched the 50% rate in income taxes allegedly as a means to bring in more revenue.

The London Telegraph reported earlier this year that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs estimated the British version of the Buffett Tax would "show a 'surge' in revenues totaling hundreds of millions of pounds from the first year."

The "surge" wasn't even a trickle. In fact, there was actually a reversal. Collections fell by $800 million compared to income tax payments a year earlier.

As Francesca Lagerberg, head of tax at the accounting firm Grant Thornton, told the Telegraph this week, the apparently unexpected outcome "highlights the fact that high tax rates don't always deliver high tax revenues."

But shouldn't they? Yes, if nothing else changes. But things change. They always do.

As government sources explained to the Telegraph, the lower revenue is the result of "well-off Britons" changing their behavior so they could "avoid the new higher rate."
Despite the inverted results and the obvious problems they will cause, the British left is insisting that the rate remain in place. Why? Because, the Telegraph reports, the left believes that "it is important to demonstrate that the rich are paying their fair share."

The jealous urge to punish the rich and to enforce a subjective fairness that blinds lawmakers in Britain is the same disorder afflicting politics in this country.
Britain Learns That A Tax On The Rich Doesn't Increase Government Revenue - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/article/602119/201202231855/britain-raises-taxes-loses-revenue.htm)

So even though there is a demonstrated inverse result from these targeted tax increases ,the left insists on them . Why ? Because of their distorted image of fairness and not sound fiscal policy.

Britain Learns That A Tax On The Rich Doesn't Increase Government Revenue - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/article/602119/201202231855/britain-raises-taxes-loses-revenue.htm)

So even though there is a demonstrated inverse result from these targetted tax increases ,the left insists on them . Why ? Because of their distorted image of fairness and not sound fiscal policy.

Raising taxes in a recession may not mean an immediate increase in overall tax revenue because the tax base is much broader than the rich and millions were earning less including the rich the value of whose investments had crashed. I remember when the highest tax rate was 90% can't imagine how few there were who actually paid it but your theorum is that if tax rates were zero the economy would boom. Let me tell you a story about a nation who had many tax evaders, they introduced a broad based consumption tax and presto, collections increased dramatically and oddly enough the economy boomed. A tax led recovery perhaps

Companies must stop hoarding cash and start investing instead | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/will-hutton-british-economic-stagnation)

Nice try Tom, but they have the same problems that we do, the job creators ain't doing their jobs and are actively keeping the money from circulating. The solution is the same as ours, government spending, and higher taxes and incentives to actually invest in their country. If the right would embrace the idea of instead of cutting poor people and there safety net, and let the rich guys PAY for REAL jobs creation like a ten years infrastructure program, partnering with schools, and colleges to get some workers they could use, instead of importing them, we wouldn't be wasting time on just waiting for job creators to do their job.

A tax increase just to have one is useless in the broader picture, but add to it some really stimulative projects, and you have some actual jobs being created, and the burdens the government is now carrying would be lessened and you can start to think of some deficit reduction.

Drastically cutting government spending creates NO jobs, NONE! It will stifle economic growth though, and have even more people out of work on that dole you decry so ferociously from the right. Depending on banks and corporations, has created no jobs, NONE! That's the role of government buddy, and not a weak one. To incentives through tax policy reinvestments in this country. I mean they haven't done squat to bail out the ones who bailed them out. Typical greedy b@stards they are. They just went back to business as usual playing amongst themselves. Tax them high, and if they want to help, give 'em a break.

Go ahead, kiss some more rich booty and see where that gets you.

Just curious, if Keystone is such a hot idea, why do taxpayers have to pay for that too? The oil companies make the profits from it so why am I building it for their benefit??

I smell more legal robbery coming to the already strapped taxpayer,

You righties got life and BS all confused.

And you lefties still cling to 1930s models that were a complete failure . You have already extended the negative effects from the 2008 recession for 4 years with no end in sight. You tout very modest increases in growth and very modest and distorted unemployment figures as proof that what you are doing is working ? Then you accuse us of being confused ? Your idiot in chief yesterday told us we can convert soilent green into biofuels to solve the energy crisis... that's all we need to know about his plans . It's all otherworldly cr@polla

It's all otherworldly cr@pollaHello again, tom:

You, along with your party are drifting rightward into unknown territory... Come back... Come back...

I COULD argue that the 30's lefty policies produced the largest sustained increase in wealth and upward mobility the world has ever seen. You'd like to take us back to the 19th Century. That's why I asked about a right wing WISH LIST. You didn't step up then, but it looks like you just did.

Surly, if we elect a Santorum, and you manage to get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, you WILL, (a) repeal Obama care, (b) end Medicare and Social Security as we know it, (c) repeal Roe, (d) OUTLAW contraceptives, (e) drug test all the liberals, and (f) (fill in the blank from a panoply of repressive choices.)

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that isn't what you'd do IF YOU COULD.

excon

If Mitt would have let the car company go bankrupt, then he will let YOU go bankrupt too. And homeless. He said so.

If Mitt would have let the car company go bankrupt, then he will let YOU go bankrupt too. And homeless. He said so.

He'd also drop everything and go rescue your family (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-heroic-romney-rescue-that-for-some-reason-th) on the lake or shut down the business to go find a missing girl (http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp).

Obama on the other hand will hold a beer summit after accusing you of racism or use other people's money to buy you some condoms.

It was racism, and its his job to delegate the spending of public money, not other peoples, on the common good. Please tell me where the free condoms are.

No, it was not racism and it's the House' job to spend our money and they suck at it, too. What, you didn't know a condom was a contraceptive and Obama plans on making those free? We've been discussing it.

We have been discussing woman's contraceptives. Show me where the president wants to make condoms free, please. I must have missed that one.

30 days until baseball, are we ready? Wheres Ex when you need him.

We have been discussing womans contraceptives. Show me where the president wants to make condoms free, please. I must have missed that one.

30 days until baseball, are we ready? Wheres Ex when you need him.

Ex is apparently setting it up. But what's the difference, condoms are contraception. You mean you've never heard of women carrying condoms?

So it turns out that the government really doesn't care if children eat healthy lunches.. . well at least lunches the government serves. Here's a new one for you to digest... Pink Slime .

‘Pink slime’ in school lunches: Government is buying 7 million pounds worth - BlogPost - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/pink-slime-in-school-lunches-government-is-buying-7-million-pounds-worth/2012/03/07/gIQAKIzRxR_blog.html)

And to think they take a turkey sandwich away from a kid for this .

You seem to be digging pretty low looking for news tom, nothing comment worthy happening over your way? Surely rick or mitt have said something worth knowing if not hasn't newt put his foot in his mouth lately

Not digging at all . This is grotesque and completely against the rhetoric coming out of the administration... especially the First Lady .

Myth: Ordinary Household Ammonia is Used to Make Some Hamburgers | Meat MythCrushers (http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-ordinary-household-ammonia-is-used-to-make-some-hamburgers.html)

I call your opinion, and raise you a FACT.

And of course there is no trace of ammonium hydroxide in the meat after processing... and you can verify that rendered scraps of sinue and non-muscle meat and waste products is not mixed into this concoction that they are feeding kids .BPI makes the product from grinding connective tissue and meat scraps that at one time might have gone for dog food or been discarded.To tell you the truth I don't even feed stuff like this to my dogs . Unbelievable!! Even Micky Ds won't use it!!

I can't believe the hypocrisy here . They are cutting healthy food with byproducts and you call it acceptable . If the Bush Adm had done this we wouldn't have heard the end of it.

And just so we are clear about what we are talking about... this is what is being mixed in the healthy food choices in the school cafeteria .

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=alex-johnson0D06C1E9-7647-E78F-05B0-148AC2AA8C55.jpg&width=600

That image is from a documentary that is almost 10 years old.

The news isn't that garbage meat is being processed this way. I've know about this for a long time and it's usage in pet food. The news is that the USDA approved the addition of this garbage filler into the healthy school lunch program.

Nope. They don't use that process any more for human food. That happened very shortly after the movie was released in 2008.

And yet the USDA approved the introduction of pink slime into the school lunch program.

and yet the USDA approved the introduction of pink slime into the school lunch program.Absolutely not. I've read the articles and in none of them do they refer to that poultry concoction being added to the school lunch programs. It's a manufactured hysteria, look at Tal's link for facts.

I don't need to look at tal's link... there are a score of links from major news outlets saying that the USDA is permitting the purchase of 7million pounds of food that contains up to 15 % of this concoction for the school lunch program. Poultry ? It's beef by-product we are talking about.

You would think by NK's reaction that this was a Fox News story and not that bastion of liberalism WaPo. I'm really not believing my eyes that tal and NK are justifying this for children's 'healthy' lunches.

I think it's more that NK... wait, how would he put it? He's just attacking anything a conservative says. Over and over again.